Nowadays, however, there are four states that require no permit at all to carry a gun, and 35 states have permissive shall issue or right-to-carry laws that effectively take the decision of who should carry a weapon out of law enforcements hands. These laws say that if an applicant meets minimal criteria  one is not having been convicted of a felony, and another is not having a severe mental illness  officials have no choice about whether to issue a permit.

Some states go even further by expressly allowing guns where they should not be. Nine states now have carry laws that permit guns on campuses; eight permit them in bars; five permit them in places of worship. In Utah, holders of permits can now carry concealed guns in elementary schools.

Among the arguments advanced for these irresponsible statutes is the claim that shall issue laws have played a major role in reducing violent crime. But the National Research Council has thoroughly discredited this argument for analytical errors. In fact, the legal scholar John Donohue III and others have found that from 1977 to 2006, shall issue laws increased aggravated assaults by roughly 3 to 5 percent each year.

The federal government could help protect the public from lax state gun laws. For starters, the Fix Gun Checks Act, proposed last year in Congress, would close gaping loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and make a huge difference in identifying many people who should be denied permits under shall issue laws yet slip through the state systems.

I always seen research that concealed licensees as a population are less likely to committ crime. Either way this article is scary. It wants the fed to stop allowing states to do shall-issue concealed permits even though this had nothing to do with the CT shooting!

A few days after the tragic Sandy Hook school murders, a young Marine in fatigues stationed himself at the front entrance of the Nashville elementary school his two children attend. Another parent heard him admit to a reporter that he was unarmed. The other parent commented that, even though the young Marine standing guard was not armed, it made him feel better to know he was there.

Its often been observed that perception is more important than reality. The observation is often correct. It is never MORE CORRECT than for those weve come to call liberals. I prefer statist but liberal has morphed from its classic meaning to the other end of the spectrum so Ill stay with it.

Since these folks operate almost entirely on EMOTION and FEELING, REALITY seldom allows FACTS to intrude upon the delusional worldview they have constructed and the comfort that provides them. It is that illogical, irrational and delusional mindset that prompts many of them to continue to quest after a Utopian society. The thought that such a society can and will never be achieved in a fallen world populated with failed sinners never penetrates whatever remains of their cognitive consciousness. Its a DANGEROUS WORLD and, as the liberals continue to define deviancy down, it becomes more dangerous daily.

There is another, far more sinister, level of the liberal call for gun control.

It was Mencken who offered that The urge to save humanity is most often a false front for the URGE TO RULE. He clearly had been a student of the liberal politicians of his day. Were he alive today and able to observe the likes of Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Obama and the rest, hed almost certainly have used far stronger language to frame his sage observation.

To conclude, dozens of studies reveal the FACTS concerning gun control. Those FACTS are that where firearms are widely and READILY available to law-abiding citizens, CRIME GOES DOWN! The liberals who willfully ignore the FACTUAL EVIDENCE and continue to call for gun control (i.e. the DISARMING of DECENT CITIZENS, thereby denying them the ability to exercise their God-given right to self-defense) are those about whom Mencken wrote: Their goal is NOT about preserving life. It is about the hell-bent pursuit of the impossible to achieve Utopian world where all are equal but some (thatd be THEM) are MORE equal than others (thatd be US).

There are many PRO-RTKABA videos on You Tube that your often busy lives dont allow you to find on your own. Search there for Gun Control, watch them  and, more importantly  SHARE THEM with the folks in your orbit.

Were in a fight. And losing will ultimately cost us much more than our right to our guns.

Let the Op Ed idjits of the New Jerk Slimes show us the statistics on the irresponsible use of fire arms by those with concealed carry permits, or the right to carry.

The fact is that its just about the only deterrent these days that keeps society stable.The courts have no deterrent to capital crimes since there are few capital punishment states, sentencing is only a partial deterrent in some forms of crime.

All that stands in the way of wilding these days is the unknown person who9 is armed and who by choice might intervene. LEs are anywhere from 20 minutes to 4 hours away once called.

The 2nd amendment is not transmutable, and as citizens we need to stand by it.Or else this is when the cultural war evolves into a civil war.

In Utah, holders of permits can now carry concealed guns in elementary schools.

When is the last time we have seen any school shootings in Utah?

The Nazi propaganda minister liked to say that ...”if you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and with enough conviction it becomes truth.” This has been the tactic of the left and in particular Minitrue for a long time.

We seem to have had more and more mass shootings since the advent of “gun free zones”. Any rational person that sees their plan is taking them farther from their goal might just begin to think they just might be going in the wrong direction....

16
posted on 12/23/2012 2:07:55 PM PST
by logic101.net
(How many children must die on the alter of "gun free zones"?)

Many anti-gun nuts in the MSM want you to believe they have nothing to do with guns at their places of business ~ yet, truck drivers deliver newsprint and ink there every day and they all come armed ~ so there's that part, and then there are the cops. The news media were the first to demand 911 as a universal emergency number to make it easier to call the cops.

If the New York Times really believed their baloney about guns they'd program their phones to never be able to dial out 911.

I always seen research that concealed licensees as a population are less likely to committ crime.

John R. Lott's rebuttal to Donohue’s research can be viewed and downloaded here . One thing I've recently learned is that one of the reasons that the murder rate has been coming down is because of better medical treatment. For many years, I've pointed to the decrease in the murder rate as evidence that the number of firearms in the hands of private citizens is no big deal as well as the effectiveness of concealed carry by citizens (with a permit or not).

Well, someone pointed out that if someone doesn't actually kill you, they are typically charged with some type of "Aggravated Assault". So you have to keep an eye on BOTH of those numbers.

I said all that to say this: Just because the Aggravated Assault number is increasing, that doesn't mean that CHL is not working. By preventing a murder and detaining a bad guy, you might end up having him arrested for Aggravated Assault.

There's no way to say that the good guys with their CHLs are the ones getting arrested for Aggravated Assault. At least not with the data available at hand.

29
posted on 12/23/2012 2:20:13 PM PST
by Stegall Tx
(Living off your tax dollars can be kinda fun, but not terribly profitable.)

Hey, I watched the Green Hornet yesterday on cable and when Brett Reed took over the paper at the news meeting, he insisted on using the word “scourge”. He was laughed at and LOOK, now the New York Times is using the word. They’re laughed at too.

A couple of trained and coordinating CCW holders would have quickly ended the rampage in CT. NYT editorial board knows that this is an undeniable fact. Granted CCW carries risks and CCW is no guarantee of safety. But they would rather have unarmed principals getting gunned down lunging at the perp as in Sandy Hook than have someone fighting back.

Because having someone fight back goes against their goal of anarcho-tyranny.

The stat your talking about is not as scary as those concernibg gun free zones, if yours are even true after all it is printed in the times. One reason for “shall issue” is there were entirely too many places where it is or was only political connections or the fact that you were a celebrity. I’m not a celebrity and if I do have political connections I’ll not use them for any personal gain or favor. There is NO reason for Mississippi to not issue me a license so they “shall issue” me a license without me having to kiss anyones butt.

"In fact, the legal scholar John Donohue III and others have found that from 1977 to 2006, shall issue laws increased aggravated assaults by roughly 3 to 5 percent each year.

There are some real big problems of making a statement like the one above. First of all not all aggravated assaults are done with firearms, in fact very few aggravated assaults are done with firearms. Second of all it doesn't tell you what the rates were for the states that do not issue concealed weapons permits. But the big thing is it is a lie, if you go to the US Department of Justice webpage you can find that aggravated assaults rose on the average of 26.3% across the United States during that time. If the case could be made that the shall issue states had a 3 to 5% increase each year this would be amazing and a definite argument for carrying concealed weapons.

YOU WANT? You Want the Federal Government to further interfere with gun laws at the local level.

I for one hold a CCL and often carry a semiautomatic handgun EVERYWHERE I go. Church, my childrens school, restaurants and bars. I do not drink. The reason WHY I carry is because scumbag criminals DO NOT follow the laws. They are not hindered by societal regulations.

I have been the victim of armed robbery on more than one occasion and after my ciousin was carjacked by a couple of ‘Amish’ youths, we both decided thaT WE WHERE not GOING TO LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN. We have families we want to come home to.

What do you think all these mass killing events all have in common? Except for the Gabby Gifford's shooting, they all have occurred in ‘gun free zones’ almost all in states with strict gun control laws and ALL of them continued until someone with a gun showed up to stop them.

39
posted on 12/23/2012 2:29:08 PM PST
by Jim from C-Town
(The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)

Has there ever been a mass shooting at a gun show? Or how about a shooting range? I’d prefer it if a**hats that don’t know the difference between an AR-15 and a USGI M-4 would just be quiet. I don’t advise New Yorkers on proper homosexual activities or the best ways to sniff drugs.

More bloviating by the homosexuals at the NYTimes. I think we should curtail the 1st Amendment. Things have gotten too dangerous in this country.

I call upon Gov. Cuomo to pass a law allowing the government of New York to issue special permits to those who will be allowed to speak freely. All others without such permit will be subject to government demonization and jail.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.